How a French scholar was treated at US airport
translate.google.com
translate.google.com
Incidents like this have probably happened hundreds of thousands of times throughout history, at customs checkpoints for many different countries. But now that Donald Trump is the president of the United States, a certain percentage of the ones that pertain to entry into the US will become international news stories that will routinely make it to the front page of HN.
I've always chalked it up to it being a fairly boring and unrewarding job and they made a wrong judgement on who we might be or something.
I February 2002 I traveled to NYC and back then I had a glaring visa stamp from Iran on the first page of my passport. At the border control the officer asked me about that visa and why I had it. I told him that I was visiting relatives and he was satisfied with that answer. Approx. 2 years ago I was traveling to Boston and then had another check at the border and this time I was asked some basic questions (where I go, what my purpose of visit, etc) for 10 minutes in a separate room. The last visit to NYC in 2016 was a thorough 40 minute of questioning. So in my experience it definitely got "worse"
https://medium.com/@rachelnabors/wtfuk-73009d5623b4#.1079ksb...
HN thread:
They're free to run things the way they like, but please don't keep telling that UK is Europe... especially after they chose and got the Brexit... not a single true european will endorse its mistakes.
If I were in Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Serbia, Macedonia, or the Ukraine would it not be appropriate to say I was in Europe?
These are all quite clearly defined. Some (many?) may think that the EU is the same as Europe, but this is plainly false.
Throughout history the ties between what is now the UK and what is now continental Europe are deep and inseparably intertwined (both culturally and geographically); it is absurd to to claim that the UK is "always whimsical" (whatever that means) and does not reflect "true" European values, whatever those may be. Look even closer within the UK and the Republic of Ireland...how is one European and the other not?!
The UK is and will foverver be part of Europe, period. This has no bearing on your opinion of who is or is not a "true European."
But how will a true Scotsman feel about it?
What the UK wants to do to its own citizens is their problem, they can vote to change it.
I'm inclined to agree that the UK differs from mainland Europe in a number of ways. I can't judge if this is the case for border control, but it wouldn't surprise. I'd really like to hear both sides elaborate rather than the 'yes', 'but no' comments so far.
"This incident caused me some discomfort, difficult to deny. However, I can not help but think of all those who suffer these humiliations and legal violence without the protections I have been able to enjoy."
>I’m not going to apologise. I’ve been fighting this brutal nonsense since I was an MP’s assistant in the late 1980s. At the time the system was that a Member of Parliament could intervene on any deportation and by contacting the Home Office get it stopped until any questionable aspects were resolved. One evening I was the last to leave the office when a call came through from Heathrow. Normally I left the immigration stops to the more experienced caseworkers, however there was nobody but me available.
> So I listened to a tearful South African chap explaining that he had flown to the UK to be at the wedding of his sole surviving relative, his sister, the following day. All his papers were in order, but the immigration people had made one attempt to contact his sister and on not having the phone answered (on the afternoon before her wedding) had told him he was to be deported to South Africa. I got out the instructions on handling such cases and having taken the chap’s number and all the relevant details, and instructed him to tell the immigration people that Stuart Holland MP’s office were in the process of getting the Home Office to put a stop on his deportation. I then called the Home Office and got them to agree to do their part of the business.
> Next I rang Heathrow to talk to the South African chap. I was told it was too late he was already on a plane to Luxemburg. I called the Home Office again and asked them to forward a further stop to Luxemburg.
> Again they agreed to do do. By now the senior caseworker had got home so I was able to get her to take over.
> I was distressed to learn from her that whilst the authorities in Luxemburg had received instructions from the UK Home Office to stop the deportation, they had ignored it and placed him on a flight back to South Africa anyway. Apparently the Home Office had also agreed to apologise “for the inconvenience” and if he wanted to come to the UK on the next available flight they would “ensure” that he would be able to enter the country. Since he had by this time already missed the wedding, and for the next couple of weeks his sister would be abroad on honeymoon, he naturally turned down this “kind offer”. I cried.
> It has not improved since then. It is now far worse.
Real lives > paper, that's the bit that people in uniform the world over seem to instantly forget the moment they put on their work clothes in the morning.
I've seen so many examples of this in my life by now that it hardly surprises me any more but I still absolutely boil at it every time I see another instance.
They sell their clients 3000 euro WordPress sites with a custom theme where Wix/SquareSpace or one of the many solid $50 WordPress themes would suffice (or a plain custom theme for a few hundred bucks). A difference in money that is huge for a starting small business or freelancer!
Or worse, they sell a 3000 euro site with a self-built CMS and, when pressed, admit that part of the reason for not using WordPress or the like is that it makes the client rely on them more.
That's just an example in my field (or part of it). But based on the many odd jobs I've had and companies I've worked in, this is pretty common.
My impression so far is that when an interaction between people becomes an explicit transaction involving money, we sort of forget about the person and tend to think in more abstract measures like money or favors or whatnot. I don't like it, and (partly) as a result I'm making it harder for myself to get rich. Thankfully web development is enough in demand that I can make choices in the matter.
The first have plenty of options, the second have none.
I would probably not personally pay for a trip to the US now.. I don't want to pay a lot of money in order to be rejected at the border.
EDIT (what to do): https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/829855684636274688
Is this article seriously suggesting i can't travel without a device or can't wipe before i go, because these CBP guys are so easily triggered?
The CBP actions and incidents as described by first hand accounts do not seem to define an institutional directive guiding the decisions as to who warrants further investigation, and more importantly, who warrants having their entry denied. From the article earlier today on Henry Rousso's experience, the Immigration Lawyer that helped secure Dr. Rousso's release suggested that agents themselves are looking for reasons to deny entry rather than reasons to admit. [1]
This isn't to excuse their behavior - it's deplorable, but to suggest there is a rhyme or reason to what's happening isn't really sensible. The issues is emboldened agents abusing power, not an institutional directive.
Quite honestly, travelers worried about drawing the ire of the CBP don't have many reassurances right now since you're not looking for what makes you suspicious or unsuspicious to the CBP, you're trying to guess what makes you suspicious or not suspicious to the individual agent you're reaching.
The agents' attitude absolutely needs to be checked and unfortunately this likely means there will be more of these cases until something institutional is sent down to curb the behavior.
[1] https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/26/us/french-historian-de...
If you come in with a tourist visa, the explicit legal presumption (opposite to presumption of innocence in criminal law) is that you're not fulfilling the conditions of the visa and actually intend to immigrate or work in USA, and the job given to the immigration officer is to interview you until (and if!) they become convinced that you really do meet the conditions - and if they aren't sure one way or another, then it's their duty to deny entry. It's not a new change coming in with Trump, it's that how USA immigration (sadly) works by design.
[1] from https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0... -
(b) Every alien 10/ (other than a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (L) or (V) of section 101(a)(15), and other than a nonimmigrant described in any provision of section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) except subclause (b1) of such section) shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15) .
FYI that article has a number of errors. Most notably that anyone can any person can detect lying better than someone else. It is simply not true. I do believe that they are trained to give oddly-phased questions, which is a technique.
Is that really a bad plan?
Edit: Also, the same guy explicitly encourages lying about your social media accounts two posts prior to that one. Which is it, chief?
The only real solution is to change government policy.
The simple idea that we might have to give our social media passwords is revolting more than a few... this story just adds to this feeling.
I realize I might need to go to US, e.g. for business, and that's fine. But for sure the random weekend hiking in the Adirondacks is now way less likely to happen.
The companies like FB give up your data freely anyway. That's assuming the NSA doesn't already have it anyway.
Let's not rule out that his skin color is on the lighter side of the spectrum.
http://www.jta.org/2017/02/25/news-opinion/united-states/u-s... (caution, stupid modal) which says
"He and his family were forced out of Egypt in 1956 under anti-Semitic measures instituted by the Nasser regime."
NPOV working about as well as it usually does there.
>As a result of the Suez Crisis, Nasser brought in a set of regulations imposing rigorous requirements for residency and citizenship as well as forced expulsions, mostly affecting British and French nationals and Jews with foreign nationality, as well as many Egyptian Jews. Some 25,000 Jews, almost half of the Jewish community left in 1956, mainly for Israel, Europe, the United States and South America.
Will they do this to us when we travel abroad on a tourist visa?
Perhaps my biggest concern is this: How long until this pushes someone over the edge? It's precisely this kind of persistent harassment that can convince an angry, disaffected young man that, yes, the system really is rigged against him.
We shouldn't. A trait of civilized society is that it doesn't reciprocates on the barbarians with their methods.
Edit - if people are uncertain about re-entry, how are they supposed to make daily decisions, as simple as leasing an apartment.
So, the policewoman bawled the woman out. No beating involved.
To me, that is mind blowingly good.
If this was just about tax rates and government spending policies no one would be nearly as upset.
To dial back the hyperbole for a second, we've seen this kind of story happening before Trump took office, and in countries other than the US. Crossing borders carries with it a non-zero chance that you'll be treated like total crap and even when you're lucky enough that the system corrects itself you'll almost certainly get no apology. Having said that, there is no reason why this kind of thing should be tolerated.
Edit: somebody else remembered the similar story from last year.
That said, I don't think it's all that strange to be extra worried now that Trump is in charge. It makes complete sense to think that things will get even worse under Trump, although I'm open to arguments to the contrary because I'd love to be proven wrong!
More interesting, my neighbor on that bus ride did not possess a passport nor even a photo ID! He was Amish and had no problems crossing the border. His papers (which I examined) included a handwritten description of his appearance.
They should spend more time on this and less time on rejecting visitors to the US.
Unfortunately government employees can be remarkably bureaucratic and power trip. They should quarantine or destroy incidental contraband like individual apples and let people get on with their business.
No, it IS silly. People carry little bits of food with them to eat while traveling, they've been doing that as long as there have been people.
Clearly this has nothing to do with importing apples at a level with which the border patrol needs to be concerned, it's just some lowlife official flexing his/her muscle.
They're not asking about fruit because they're worried you may sell that single apple and drive a farmer out of business. The spread of agricultural pests and diseases is a major problem.
Really, this is totally over the top. It's not like we're talking about a an apple that you couldn't buy on either side of the border without any differences whatsoever.
And it could easily be that that apple was produced in the USA to begin with (or further South).
From a pest spreading perspective this makes no sense.
Going through the Southern barricade on foot I could see the point, going from Canada into the USA by bus with an apple it makes zero sense, especially since the pest you so helpfully linked here is widespread on both sides of the border anyway, besides the fact that it was extremely unlikely to carry that particular pest since it was sold as fit for consumption.
Or did you feel that because it came from Canada that there was some terrible risk that would not have been present had it come from any one of the other 49 states?
That seems to go against (what appears to be) global scientific consensus that controls like these are helpful in slowing the spread of invasive species.
Or are you just arguing there should be exemptions for small amounts?
The USA and Canada are to all intents and purposes one when it comes to this kind of control. There are some borders that have been constructed with a biological air-gap in mind but that's not one of them.
This is one of them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dari%C3%A9n_Gap
And it is effective because it is both deep and there are no easy ways around it.
I've visited places where there was definite risk of contamination and there are plenty of historic examples (of whole continents, for that matter, such as Australia) where eco-systems were upset by bringing in pests, diseases, new predators or animals without local predators so I'm well aware of the risk.
But border guards going overboard because of an apple makes zero sense to me, it is an over-reaction to something that is not a threat.
Yes, hypothetically you might be able to find a path through which a new disease might spread from one country to another because of a single apple. But since we allow animals to freely roam the Canadian/US border at will, since all the diseases that might affect your apple orchard as far as I'm aware are spread on both sides of the border since as long as we can remember in most cases and since that apple could have easily been inspected on carrying some kind of scary insect (which likely wasn't present or the owner would not have brought it) and everything else it might carry (some kind of blight) would likely not be carried past the point where it would survive normal indigestion and disposal the risk is so vanishingly small that it becomes a display of power rather than something useful.
Case in point: The many apples that I've carried from one side of the border to the other without so much as a batted eye. It's either consistent enforcement or you might as well not enforce at all and I highly doubt the US/Canadian border is so well established that it would not be possible to carry truckloads of apples across if one were so inclined.
Not all of the border is patrolled, even though you might believe other wise.
When the pig disease fear was in full swing the measures were laughably inefficient and inconsistent, and that was an actual threat with serious risk of contagion.
West Nile is another nice example: Mosquitoes don't see that imaginary line we call a border. Same with ant species, beetles and other big time destroyers of lives or crops.
Having the border patrol confiscate apples might sell a few more apples South of the border and it might give the official a boner but it isn't going to achieve much to keep a country safer, rather the opposite, it's going to cause people to find creative ways to get their stuff across the border with the chance that someone does smuggle a box with seed potatoes carrying blight across un-noticed.
And that would be a problem. An apple clearly intended for consumption is no more dangerous than any other item intended for consumption including sandwiches, liquids and so on.
If you're going to forbid apples you might as well forbid those otherwise it is inconsistent.
While I'm sure there are exceptions, it's not in any way common to be "sent back" for this.
While I agree the enforcement can be over-zealous (I've seen it first hand), I think if it wasn't produce it would just be something else they'd nitpick. It's the mentality of the guards that's the problem.
And what type of system would you propose as an alternative? A threshold based on actual risk? Well then every type of produce is going to have different limits. And what about different sub-species of the same fruit? If Macintosh apples are a bigger risk than Red Delicious, surely they should have different limits. It's only fair. Now you're counting on a traveller (and border guard) to be able to know the difference between a myriad list of produce types. Good luck with that.
I'd argue, that such a system would lead to slower crossings, higher costs, and less focus on more important matters like security threats. The rule itself may be extreme but makes a lot of sense in the context of processing millions of travellers efficiently.
Just as with software, simple, easy to understand paradigms are usually better.
>If you're going to forbid apples you might as well forbid those otherwise it is inconsistent.
The line has to be drawn somewhere. In the interest of balancing risk and expediency "no produce allowed" seems like a perfectly reasonable rule to me. Even children can understand it. Heck, even non-English speakers could be made to understand it with some well designed signage.
Anyways, there are way bigger issues with border crossing rules and procedures. It just seems like an odd issue to be so passionate about in this day and age.
It is imposible to know in advance everything any traveler might have on their person at the time of crossing the border, so everything that is not explicitly whitelisted should not be forbidden by default; and it is travelers duty to know the list of permitted things well in advance. It this is not the case right now, it means airlines and travel agencies are externalizing the cost of educating their customers, and this is reflected in the form of needless risks to public health.
I don't know you, but I would hate to be a farmer that looses the family's apple orchard to a foreign parasite that got introduced by some dumb tourist, just because the fat-cat air industy need to sale cheap tickets to anyone with a pulse and cannot afford to send a damned brochure to the buyers' address.
Of course all the good little boys and girls will only eat apples locally grown to make sure such terrible dangers will not befall the local farmers and to avoid 'needless risks to public health'.
It is obvious to you that apples cannot bring any pests. Last time I checked you were an IT professional, not an epidemiologist; so please forgive me if I am skeptical of you abilities to judge whether the assertation up there is true or not. Actually, I am skeptical of the abilities of the average tourist to judge whether the thing they are already biased to do for their own comfort is against the public good or not.
But anyways... we were talking apples, what about oranges? What about pets? Do we really need to go through the list of all possible things that all possible travelers might think they are entitled to carry on their person? Wouldn't you agree that a rule that is not simple enough to be executed by your random clerk is, for all practical purposes, unenforceable?
So, even if apples are sort of OK to bring in, they still should be banned until it is throughly demonstrated that they are OK to bring in. And the resources needed for that through demonstration can only happen if enough people want to bring those apples (and maybe pay a customs fare for it).
I can take an apple from where I'm sitting to the Turkish border 2000+ km away without anybody batting an eye but somehow miraculously an apple in the possession of a traveler from Canada to the USA or the other way around is a huge danger.
As for me being an IT professional: yes, that's my main occupation. But besides that I have a rather wide interest (as in pretty much anything that I can read that I can get my hands on) and have also lived on the Canadian/US border.
And the thing that I recall is that every so often the USA would come up with some trumped-up reason to declare Canadian products/produce/whatever to be so dangerous that they could not possible cross the border any more, and more often than not (in fact, pretty much all the cases) were simply protectionism under the guise of safety.
Fearmongering in the name of commerce, what else is new?
1) Buy a Tesla car an send it hidden to China. 2) Take a Tesla car in China an send it to USA.
Both are totally different cases
Apples not only can carry diseases, they have an economical value also and this value can be surprisingly huge. The american apple sector means more than 3 billions of dollars each year. New fancy varieties supported by research and heavy marketing can represent a big chunk of this and have a strict copyright. This protected varieties can't be cloned or exported without a license of the company. Losing the control and exclusivity over your product valued in several million dollars is all except hilarious.
But it's clear, my personal close call at the US border was under Obama, and that I am far from calling him someone in love with justice.
Trump, OTOH, is the kind of person who wants to throw out all the Yemeni in case one of them is another Timothy McVeigh.
You can't really prove this. Something being said in the front of the camera with a fake smile on the face is one thing, documents being signed that are not released to the public is a different story.
Any king can claim to be innocent when a bishop is killed in his realm, and may in theory be innocent. One that said "oh, won't someone rid me of this troublesome priest" before the bloodshed can't expect to be believed innocent, though.
"[...] the shift — and the new enthusiasm that has come with it — seems to have encouraged pro-Trump political comments and banter that struck the officials as brazen or gung-ho, like remarks about their jobs becoming 'fun.' Those who take less of a hard line on unauthorized immigrants feel silenced, the officials said."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/us/ice-immigrant-deportat...
I guess we'll be seeing more and more of this in the near future. I and other non citizens are now silenced. A few more laws like this to silence a few other anti-trmup groups and the USA will slowly creep into totalitarianism for fear of losing everything they have.
I'm just glad my birth country is Australia and I can happily return there before it gets really bad in the USA. The biggest problem I'm having is where shall I draw the line where I pack up my life here and return.
If he "didn't want them to happen" it would have been trivial to stop them. Would not even need a new law, a presidential speech would be enough.
When I applied for... it doesn't matter precisely what. I've forgotten, actually, but it was some piece of paper that foreigners need, and only foreigners. Anyway, when I applied for that I chanced upon an official who didn't have much sympathy for foreigners. I got my paper in the end, but it wasn't because of his helpfulness.
Can you describe, as an example to support your assertion, what should have been in the speech to make that official speak a understandably to foreigners? Slur a little less, swallow fewer consonants?
An example of what? That the POTUS, who appoints the Homeland Security secretary, could, if they so wished, absolutely influence behavior and/or policy in the TSA?
>Can you describe, as an example to support your assertion, what should have been in the speech
How about something like: "Any malevolent behavior and unnecessary harassement to visitors from border officials wont be tolerated?"
Realistic?
“If only the czar knew!”
The part where he mentions three officials immediately shouted down a man in unison after he protested about their treatment of the woman with the child is a perfect example of the cruel and over the top behavior I was witness to. It's also quite cowardly to need three people to do that and pathetic. I should say I was not often the victim, but just watching other people being treated in this way made me feel sick and I think it's something that should be addressed by the citizens, you should say denounce this sort of treatment of anyone. Anyone who gets pleasure out of causing any sort of suffering of another person should be removed from their post, based on my experiences that would require a complete overhaul from top to bottom.
Nothing has really changed with regards to how people are treated.
Do you mean to say that you are the French historian Henry Rousso?
Google's dictionary (wherever it comes from) has
> conjunction 2: used to indicate by comparison the way that something happens or is done
I think you're thinking of
> preposition 1: used to refer to the function or character that someone or something has
I never anticipated anybody would be so moronic as to think that.
I think the author of this article made the classic mistake of admitting he was being paid for work, which is forbidden with a regular US tourist visa. It turns out that he did have the right visa (or the type of work he was doing is permitted - it wasn't clear in the article), but as soon as you say that you're being paid, it sets off alarm bells.
My understanding -- reading between the lines -- is that if someone has been to the US on a J1 they are more likely to return and work illegally.
CBP screen based on this. It sucks, and has for a long time. I've not personally experienced any change post-Obama. The major variability is in the CBP agent, not in top-down policies.
At the end of the day you have to choose between open and closed borders. If you want to close your borders then screening is a tough business. The main difference between the US and the rest of the world is scale and desirability. A lot of people want to go there, more than any other country in the world. That makes it difficult!
> A police officer beats a woman whose three-year-old runs in all directions
engueuler. (transitive, informal) to give (someone) a roasting, to tell someone off. (reflexive, informal) to argue, to have a row.
So I think the officer just gave her a telling off.
A more idiomatic phrase in the US would be "she was chewed out".
e:fb
If you're going to get paid, you need an appropriate visa.
Unfortunately some institutions don't understand this/don't want to understand this/tell you "it's fine, we do this all the time." But if you say the wrong thing at the border, you'll be denied entry and it'll get noted down for the next time you try and enter the country.
So I think it's relevant to the article because that's probably what the CBP agent was thinking. And the fact that he'd have been doing it for 30 years doesn't change anything.
Otherwise as French we don't need a visa just to visit the US, we are on the visa waiver program (ESTA).
No. There are plenty of situations where you can get paid in the USA without having a work visa. As you mentioned, the scholar in this article is one example. Another example: my spouse has a H-4, which is not a work visa, but has received employment authorization (EAD) and can get paid. Another example: athletes can enter the USA on a B-1, which is not a work visa, and get paid prize money.
We could keep going, but the point is that a rule with too many exceptions stops being useful and just becomes a false statement. This led the first CBP officer to incorrectly detain the scholar in the article. This also led the author of the original comment I replied to to visibly stop reading the article halfway through, and post to HN that the scholar did not have an appropriate visa and that it was the university's fault, both of which are explicitly debunked at the end of the article.
> that the official who examined my file was
> "inexperienced" and did not know that certain activities,
> including those related to research and education,
> enjoyed an exceptional regime and could well be carried
> out with A simple tourist visa."
Seems you can get limited payment called an honorarium.
There's some more details here: https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/BusinessVisa%20Pu...
I've travelled to the US quite a few times on different types of visas (lived and worked there for a few years). It's important to know yourself what is and isn't allowed, as some people will try and tell you "things are fine, we've done it loads of times" when in fact they don't understand the restrictions properly, and it'll be recorded against you and not them when you get denied entry.
An honorarium is sort of a funny thing because it's not really a payment, or at least that's the fiction. The theory is that it's more like a thank you gesture, very possibly at below market rates. Who knows what he actually said to CBP. If it was something to the effect of "Sure, I'm being paid for my speech," it's not hard to see this raising a flag.
There really is a broader lesson here that has nothing to do with the current US president or the US in particular.
Countries in general have a lot of rules about visitors working and what constitutes "working" from country to country. And many countries have rules about just about any business activities if you're on a tourist visa.
ADDED: Furthermore re: "things are fine, we've done it loads of times"
I don't get paid when I speak at events. But it's also the case that when I travel to Europe, I'm not sure I've ever been asked that question. It's usually "I'm attending a computer software conference" "in XYZ city" "I work for such and such" etc. If someone were getting paid, I could see it not coming up for years and suddenly it does for some reason and it's a problem.
Look, this was a stupid decision made by a stupid officer. An officer who lives es in Aggie land too! (For those of you not in Texas, Aggies aka A&M people are known for being good old country levels of dumb, and are often the butt of jokes.)
Now, that's not an excuse, but this was an outlier fuckup that has happened for years before Trump, though I'm willing to grant its probably more likely to happen with overzealous people in this political climate.
Its funny that the UK has been doing stuff like this to vast amounts of US persons visiting the UK on the same bad understanding of people giving payed for speeches/debates, but everyone has suddenly forgotten about that.
Look, there is room for improvement, and officers in this position should be held to a higher standard by their superiors, but when all you have is a hammer(outrage mode), everything begins to look like a nail (outrageous action), so let's work on calming down and being a bit more rational and focused on practical ways to solve issues please.
"Traveling for a scientific, educational, professional or business convention, or a conference on specific dates" is an intended use case of the visa type. (https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-visito...)
However, you cannot get paid for it. In addition the conference must not be about recruiting.
https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/BusinessVisa%20Pu...
> Lecturer or speaker: If honorarium will be received, ... [list of conditions that the scholar in the article visibly meets].
It baffles my mind why multiple people in this HN thread keep suggesting that the scholar in the article didn't have an appropriate visa.
It seems the decision by the officer was actually upheld by his/her direct superior (referring to the original. Translation: "Not being in possession of a federal document authorizing me to work in the United States, I am in violation. The decision will be confirmed later by his superior - that I will not have the opportunity to meet.").
It's more subtle than that. If it hadn't been for the very specific exception for scholars it would indeed have been work without a proper work visa.
And why badger a 70 year old Australian children's book author who had visited the US 116 times previously? [1]
Not to ignore or minimize abuse by CBP officers, but from the CBP perspective, from the tax payers' perspective, what possible value derives from this behavior? Is this purely a result of a lack of leadership, bad management, and hiring unsuitable people for the task?
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/25/australian-c...
I'm fairly sure the net value is a negative, especially when taken in accumulation.
Every single time I've had a run-in with CBP or DHS they have (with two notable exceptions) come across as a hoard of malicious little fascists, delighting in how much power -- and how little oversight -- they'd been given over another person's life.
I was traveling shortly after 9/11 and the National Guard was deployed to many airports. Fair, calm, and respectful, they were a comparative delight to deal with.
I understand that for foreigners to see trump sworn into office and then all of these stories pop up would make them think america has changed so recently, but its not true. It like an episode of the Twilight Zone.
I don't want to subject myself to questionning and genuflecting just to travel somewhere, live and work where I please, I am too much used to crossing borders as if they didn't exist. (I am French and travelled accross Europe, never went to the US)
They are perfectly free to apply due process (or even common sense) at the border, it's just that they have not been forced to.
if (visitor.countryOfBirth.ContainsAny(listOfScaryMuslimCountries)) visitor.giveExtremelyHardTime();
irony is that professor is Jewish, but that sub-rule was not implemented yet.
Edit: now that I'm aware that the text I'm reading is a translation, I see the errors. I guess my brain just filtered it out. Still awesome though!
"Berates" feels much closer than "shouts at", "engueuler" is not just general shouting there's a strong component of scolding to it.
Also "policewoman" if you want to carry gender across the translation, but I'd say "police officer" is just fine, french requires gendering, english does not.
Gender is important when we talk about "beating" people though.
I was reading it in English when I read that line and thought that didn't seem right. I mean, that would have been the title of the article.
Or it did and did not care, "police officer" is a perfectly valid translation for "policière", French is a highly gendered language, English significantly less so.
Yes, the answer was in the article, but it was toward the end. Since many of these days skim articles or read HN comments first or some combination _and_ getting paid to do something for others is a common, if not defining aspect of "work" [0], her question is logical.
As for FUD spreading, before she even asked the question, she started by stating, "IANAL" which indicates anything said about the law should be taken with more than a bit of doubt.
So take a chill pill. Yes,it is important to answer the question to remove doubt or ambiguity, but there was no need to be rude or disrespectful or to berate her for asking a question!
[0] The societal definition of "work", not the physical sciences definition.
edit for spelling and formatting
ISNT PUTTING SOMEONE IN A ROOM FOR TWELVE HOURS FOR NO FUCKING REASON A CRIME
Source: I grew up in the UK where you (still) don't need to carry a drivers license. Meanwhile in the USA where I'm now a citizen I get a cold sweat if I forget my wallet when I take a 10 minute drive to buy some milk in case I'm pulled over by the cops..
Neither curiousgirl or I said the prof should have been detained.
Neither curiousgirl or I said his detention was legal.
Neither curiousgirl or I said we shouldn't fight the current climate.
Neither curiousgirl or I YELLED AT SOMEBODY ON THE INTERWEBS.
I pointed out that someone had a reasonable question, and asked it in a reasonable and respectful way, in a forum that supposedly is about discussion.
Y'all need to pick your battles. It shouldn't have been with either of us!!!
There's a convenient arrangement, but strictly speaking you commit an offence if you don't, when asked, give your driving licence.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VII/crosshe...
This is an important difference between US and UK.
We have bad laws and they're not often used. The US has bad laws and they're used all the time.
By not immediately producing the document you've committed the offence. (Section 164(1-6), unless section 164(7) applies (it almost never does)) It's a defence to produce them not more than 7 days later, this is in section 164(8).
Strictly speaking: you need to carry your licence and produce when asked. You commit the offence if you do not immediately produce the licence, but it's a defence if you produce the licence within 7 days to a named police station.
> Nothing bad can happen to you (e.g. you can't be detained) for driving without your license on your person.
That's not correct. If officers need to identify you and they can't from the information you give you're going to have a bad time. They most certainly can detain you until they identify you. (If you're the driver.)
Lots of US law enforcement experts from overseas on the Interwebs these days.
https://f2.washington.edu/fm/globalsupport/honorarium-paymen...
Note in particular that the VWB (Visa Waiver - Business) encompasses this type of payment.
I don't remember exactly how it works, but last time I visited the USA for a conference, I think I ticked the 'business' box. I still got the awful interrogation they do, but I think everyone's noticed that's been standard for a few years now.